Summary:
All articles in Senate section
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1997
(Senate - May 15, 1997)
Text of this article available as:
[Pages S4517-S4575]
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1997
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to H.R. 1122, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1122) to amend title 18, United States Code,
to ban partial-birth abortions.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Under the previous order, the
Senator from California is recognized to call up an amendment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
Amendment No. 288
(Purpose: To prohibit certain abortions)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to begin this debate by
sending an amendment to the desk. This amendment is sent on behalf of
myself, Senator Boxer, and Senator Moseley-Braun.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself,
Mrs. Boxer, and Ms. Moseley-Braun proposes an amendment
numbered 288.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Post-Viability Abortion
Restriction Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN ABORTIONS.
(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful, in or affecting
interstate or foreign commerce, for
[[Page S4518]]
a physician knowingly to perform an abortion after the fetus
has become viable.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply if, in the
medical judgment of the attending physician, the abortion is
necessary to preserve the life of the woman or to avert
serious adverse health consequences to the woman.
SEC. 3. CIVIL PENALTIES.
(a) Action by Attorney General.--The Attorney General, the
Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or
any Assistant Attorney General or United States Attorney
specifically designated by the Attorney General (referred to
in this Act as the ``appropriate official''), may commence a
civil action under this subsection in any appropriate United
States district court to enforce the provisions of this Act.
(b) Relief.--
(1) First violation.--In an action commenced under
subsection (a), if the court finds that the respondent in the
action has violated a provision of this Act, the court shall
assess a civil penalty against the respondent in an amount
not exceeding $100,000, and refer the case to the State
medical licensing authority for consideration of suspension
of the respondent's medical license.
(2) Second violation.--If a respondent in an action
commenced under subsection (a) has been found to have
violated a provision of this Act on a prior occasion, the
court shall assess a civil penalty against the respondent in
an amount not exceeding $250,000, and refer the case to the
State medical licensing authority for consideration of
revocation of the respondent's medical license.
(c) Certification Requirements.--
(1) In general.--At the time of the commencement of an
action under subsection (a), the appropriate official shall
certify to the court involved that the appropriate official--
(A) has provided notification in writing of the alleged
violation of this Act, at least 30 calendar days prior to the
filing of such action, to the attorney general or chief legal
officer of the appropriate State or political subdivision;
and
(B) believes that such an action by the United States is in
the public interest and necessary to secure substantial
justice.
(2) Limitation.--No woman who has had an abortion after
fetal viability may be penalized under this Act for a
conspiracy to violate this section or for an offense under
section 2, 3, 4, or 1512 of title 18, United States Code.
SEC. 4. REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall establish regulations--
(1) requiring an attending physician described in section
2(b) to certify that, in the best medical judgment of the
physician, the abortion described in section 2(b) was
medically necessary to preserve the life or to avert serious
adverse health consequences to the woman involved, and to
describe the medical indications supporting the judgment; and
(2) to ensure the confidentiality of all information
submitted pursuant to a certification by a physician under
paragraph (1).
(b) State Regulations and Procedures.--The regulations
described in subsection (a) shall not apply in a State that
has established regulations described in subsection (a).
SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit State or
local governments from regulating, restricting, or
prohibiting post-viability abortions to the extent permitted
by the Constitution of the United States.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer a substitute amendment
to H.R. 1122, which, as I said, is cosponsored by Senators Boxer and
Moseley-Braun. The amendment we offer is presented as an alternative to
the House-passed bill on so-called partial-birth abortions and as an
alternative to the Daschle substitute as well.
My colleagues and I offer this amendment for one reason: We very much
believe that any legislation put forward by Congress that restricts
access to abortions or to a particular medical procedure must be
constitutional and must contain sufficient protections for a woman's
health. The Feinstein-Boxer-Moseley-Braun bill provides that protection
while instituting a ban on post-viability abortions similar to that in
the Daschle bill.
Our bill does three things.
First, it prohibits all abortions after a fetus has become viable or
able to live independently outside of the mother's womb.
Second, it provides an exception for cases where, in the medical
judgment of a physician, an abortion is necessary to preserve the life
of the mother or to prevent serious adverse health consequences to the
mother.
And third, it provides stringent civil penalties for physicians
performing post-viability abortions in the absence of compelling
medical reasons.
The penalties are limited to the physician and include for the first
offense a fine of $100,000, and referral to a State licensing board for
possible suspension of the medical license.
For the second offense, the fine would be up to $250,000, with
referral to the State licensing board for possible revocation of
license.
There is no health exception in H.R. 1122, known as the Santorum
bill. And we do not believe that the health exception provided in the
Daschle bill is sufficient, nor do we believe that it will meet the
constitutional test.
Let me begin by speaking of my opposition to the House bill. And let
me begin by pleading with anyone listening to this debate to read the
bill--read H.R. 1122. It is short. It is easy to read. I want to quote
from page 2 of that bill to illustrate what this bill does.
Let me begin on line 9:
Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and
thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
The bill refers to a ``partial-birth abortion,'' which is a term not
existing in medical literature or medical texts. So let us find out
what a partial-birth abortion is. And we turn to line 19 of page 2 for
that description:
As used in this section, the term ``partial-birth
abortion'' means an abortion in which the person performing
the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus
before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.
The issue here is clear. We heard yesterday on this floor a vivid
description of a procedure, a procedure known as ``intact D''
Nowhere in House Resolution 1122 are ``intact D'' or ``intact D''
or any medical procedure referred to. Instead, we have a term not
existent in medical science anywhere called ``partial-birth abortion.''
Now, anyone who is familiar with a woman's physiology knows that this
term can be used to deny second-trimester and third-trimester
abortions--virtually, I believe, all of them.
If the concern of the authors of this legislation were truly in fact
to prohibit or ban one specific procedure, why would they not spell out
what the procedure is in legislative language just as they have
graphically spelled out the procedure on the Senate floor? Why? Why not
do that?
I believe there is a reason why they did not do that. And the reason
is, that I sincerely believe that this bill is meant to do much more,
much more than simply ban a procedure known as intact D or intact
D I believe that this bill is essentially a Trojan horse, a Trojan
horse in the sense that it is not at all what it seems to be on the
outside.
If you look on the inside, which means opening the page of the bill,
you will see that this bill is the first major legislative thrust to
make abortion in the United States of America illegal.
I stated yesterday on the floor that we are really a product of our
live's experiences. And my life's experiences that have caused me to be
essentially pro-choice are essentially threefold.
The first, my days in college at Stanford University, days when I
remember a bright young woman who committed suicide because she was
pregnant and abortion was illegal in the United States. And I also
remember the passing of a plate in a college dormitory so that another
friend could go to Mexico for an abortion. I remember that well.
My second life experience was in the early 1960's at the California
Institution for Women, the women's prison in California for women
convicted of felonies, where I set sentences and granted paroles to
women convicted of providing abortions. I remember this well because
the only way a case really came to the attention of the authorities was
either through the morbidity or the mortality of the patient.
And I remember the graphic stories in those cumulative summaries that
were given to us prior to term setting, of what happened to women who
were victims of illegal abortions. And I remember that the women who
provided the abortions would leave and come back and commit the same
crime again because of the importunings of other women.
And the third graphic experience for me was becoming a grandmother
and finding out that my daughter in her pregnancy had an unexpected,
very serious, potentially life-threatening problem, and realizing how
surprised I was not to know that this could happen in this day and age.
But it did happen.
[[Page S4519]]
My story--my daughter's story--came out fine because today I have a
bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and wonderful, light of my life, in the
form of a 41/2-year-old granddaughter by the name of Eileen.
But I learned that there can be unpredictable occurrences, and that
when we legislate--in a piece of paper that becomes an abiding law
enforced everywhere throughout the United States of America--we ought
to legislate with the knowledge that human life and human experience
has many permutations that are unexpected and unanticipated.
I view H.R. 1122 as doing much, much more than banning a simple
procedure. That procedure is not mentioned anywhere in this piece of
legislation. But it does set up the basis for lawsuit after lawsuit
against any physician that might practice and might perform a second-
trimester abortion. Every other type of abortion in some way has the
head of the fetus coming through the birth canal. And then the case is,
at what point is that fetus still living or not living? And so I think
it is a potentially very dangerous piece of legislation in that regard.
I mentioned yesterday that I basically do not believe that intact D
or intact D should be used, that there are other forms of abortion.
That is my personal belief. And I believe that the AMA is on its way in
a medical venue of taking some steps to limit it. We all know we are
talking about less than 1 percent of all of the abortions that take
place in this country, in any event.
So the question is, what do we do? What kind of legislation do we
present that recognizes the exigencies, the human trials, the
difficulties that a woman can have?
Yesterday, I mentioned a young nurse; her name is Viki Wilson. When I
was a county supervisor and mayor, I worked with her mother, Susan
Wilson, who was a supervisor from Santa Clara County. Viki Wilson is a
nurse, married to a doctor. In her 36th week she had a sonogram and she
found out she had a severely deformed baby with its brain outside its
skull. She learned that the contractions she was having were actually
seizures that the child was having and that the child was incompatible
of sustaining life outside of the womb.
She went to a doctor and her doctor recommended the particular
procedure that is under siege here today, as the procedure, at that
stage of her pregnancy, that would be most protective of her health. I
cannot tell you whether it was or not. I am not a physician. There is
only one physician in this body who might know. Yet, we are going to
legislate, in a bill that is drafted to be so broad, that it can impact
much more than one procedure.
The amendment that the three of us present to this body today, we
believe, comports with Roe versus Wade. We believe it would not put in
jeopardy every second- and third-trimester abortion. We believe it
would prohibit every third-trimester abortion unless the life and the
health, as defined by serious adverse health consequences to the
mother, were at risk, and that this decision would be made by the
physician and the woman, which I think is the appropriate remedy for
this issue.
I think this is a very difficult debate because most people have not
read the bill before the Senate, H.R. 1122. Most people really do not
understand the whole panoply of human ills that can take place in a
pregnancy.
I believe the AMA, in the recent paper they have put forward, very
clearly indicates they believe that, with few exceptions, this
procedure that is at question should not be used. However, they are
not--and I think rightly so--not ready to sacrifice the integrity of
the medical profession to say that no doctor, no matter what the
situation is, no matter what the physiology of the woman may be, no
matter that she may not be able to have another procedure, that she
might be adversely impacted healthwise, cannot, no matter what the
situation is, have this procedure as a remedy.
Mr. President, we present to you a bill that we believe is
constitutional, a bill that would ban all third-trimester abortions,
unless the life and health of the woman, as defined as serious adverse
health consequences, were threatened. The bill includes very strong
civil penalties, which we believe would be a substantial deterrent to
the performance of any third-trimester abortions unless there is a very
serious medical need.
Mr. President, I notice my distinguished colleague, and I ask the
Senator from Massachusetts how much time he desires.
Mr. KENNEDY. I would like 10 minutes, and I appreciate the courtesy,
but I expect, Mr. President, that we are perhaps alternating back and
forth.
I see Senator DeWine, as well as Senator Santorum.
Mr. SANTORUM. I will do a unanimous-consent request and then be happy
to let the Senator from Massachusetts speak.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Steven
Schlesinger, a detailee on the Judiciary Committee, and Michelle
Kitchen, a member of my staff, be permitted privileges of the floor for
the duration of the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that the Republican
leadership has chosen to force this debate on the same confrontational
and unconstitutional legislation that President Clinton vetoed last
year, when reasonable and constitutional alternatives are so obviously
available. It is clear that the primary purpose of the Republican
leaders is not to regulate late-term abortions, but to roll back the
protections for women guaranteed by the Supreme Court.
If the goal is to pass effective legislation, the sponsors of the
Santorum bill know they must meet the constitutional requirments for
protecting of a woman's right to choose. President Clinton has made
clear that he cannot and will not accept a ban on any procedure that
represents the best hope for a woman to avoid serious risks to her
health. The bill vetoed last year and the bill before us today are
identical, and they clearly fail to provide these needed protections
for women.
The Supreme Court rulings in the Roe and Casey decisions prohibit
Congress and the States from imposing an ``undue burden'' on a woman's
right to choose to have an abortion at any time up to the point where
the developing fetus reaches the stage of viability.
Governments can constitutionally limit abortions after the stage of
viability, as long as the limitations contain exceptions to protect the
life and the health of the woman.
This bill flunks that clear constitutional test in two ways. It
imposes an undue burden--a flat prohibition--on a woman's
constitutional right to an abortion before fetal viability. And it
impermissibly limits the right to an abortion after fetal viability, by
excluding any protection whatsoever for the woman's health.
Given the clear constitutional problems with this bill, it is fair to
ask, why do Republicans insist that we send it to the President, for
another certain veto, when reasonable alternatives are available.
In fact, there is little need for any Federal legislation in this
area because 41 States already ban late-term abortions. Massachusetts
has prohibited these abortions except when the woman's life is in
danger or ``the continuation of the pregnancy would impose a
substantial risk of grave impairment to the woman's physical or mental
health.'' Many other States have similar restrictions. There is no
evidence that the States are not enforcing their laws.
Supporters of the Republican bill also claim that the public and
Congress were misled about the actual number of abortions performed by
the procedure that would be banned by their bill. But very few, if any,
of us in the last Congress were misled about the facts. Only a few
hundred of these procedures are performed after viability, and they are
performed in cases where the fetus cannot survive because of a severe
medical abnormality, or where there is a serious threat to the life or
the health of the woman.
It was clearly reported during last year's debate that the procedure
was also used before the stage of viability, and that the number of
such cases was larger, probably amounting to several thousand a year.
But all of us were also
[[Page S4520]]
aware that Congress cannot constitutionally ban the procedure at that
stage.
We know that some doctors begin to use the particular procedure that
would be banned by the Republican bill at about 20 weeks of gestation,
which is well before the time when a fetus has the capacity for
survival outside the womb. Most authorities place the time of viability
at 24 to 26 weeks in a normal pregnancy. According to the best
available statistics, 99 percent of all abortions are performed before
20 weeks. Only about 1 percent of all abortions are performed after
that time, and two-thirds of those abortions are performed before the
23d week.
This information is provided by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and
used by the National Center for Health Statistics. It is the most
accurate information available.
Even so, it is difficult to draw a sharp dividing line on the
viability of a particular pregnancy. A great deal depends on the
prenatel care the woman is receiving. Low-birth weight babies reach
viability at later stages of pregnancy.
A further problem is that viability is to some extent a statistical
concept. At 21 weeks of a normal pregnancy, few if any fetuses can
survive. At 23 weeks about 25 percent survive. At 26 weeks about 50
percent survive.
A physician's decision relies on best medical judgment, but it is
hardly precise for a particular case. The real issue involves lives and
the health of women. The so-called partial-birth abortion bill would
not stop a single abortion. Instead, it would force women to use
another, possibly more dangerous procedure if they must terminate their
pregnancy to preserve their health.
Of course, the sponsors of this bill continue to argue that there are
no circumstances in which a procedure banned by the bill is necessary
to preserve a woman's health. And, even worse, some supporters don't
seem to care. Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics, an
antiabortion organization based in Denton TX, told the Detroit Free
Press that the bill is ``a scam being perpetrated by people on our side
of the issue * * * for fund-raising purposes.''
It doesn't seem to matter to the proponents of this defective
Republican bill that women like Maureen Britell, Eileen Sullivan,
Coreen Costello, Erica Fox, Vikki Stella, Tammy Watts, Viki Wilson, and
others will be forced to risk serious health consequences if this bill
becomes law.
Doctor after doctor has told us that this procedure may be necessary
to preserve a woman's health. The American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists has said:
An intact D may be the best or most appropriate procedure
in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the
health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with
the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances
can make this decision. The intervention of legislative
bodies into medical decisionmaking is inappropriate, ill-
advised, and dangerous.
Perhaps if the Republican men in Congress were the ones to get
pregnant, they would show more compassion for the women who find
themselves in these tragic circumstances.
Take the case of Coreen Costello. After consulting numerous medical
experts and doing everything possible to save her child, Coreen had the
procedure that would be banned by this legislation. Based on that
experience, she gave the following testimony to the Senate Judiciary
Committee last year:
I hope you can put aside your political differences, your
positions on abortion, and your party affiliations and just
try to remember us. We are the ones who know. We are the
families that ache to hold our babies, to love them, to
nurture them. We are the families who will forever have a
hole in our hearts. We are the families that had to choose
how our babies would die * * * please put a stop to this
terrible bill. Families like mine are counting on you.
I oppose this legislation. Instead, I stand with Coreen Costello and
others whose lives and health must be protected. The alternative
proposed by Senator Snowe and Senator Daschle provides that protection,
and so does the alternative proposed by Senator Feinstein, Senator
Boxer and Senator Moseley-Braun. I intend to vote for these
alternatives, because they respect the Constitution, and above all they
respect the right of women and their doctors to make these difficult
and tragic decisions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. How much time is the Senator requesting?
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 15 minutes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 15 minutes to the
Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let me say how proud I am to stand with my
colleague, my senior Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, and
the senior Senator from Illinois, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, who has
just arrived on the floor, to speak in favor of the bill which really
addresses an issue that the American people want addressed. It does so
in a way that is constitutional. It does so in a way that is respectful
of women and their families.
When we approach this issue, we have very strong feelings in the
approach that is taken, in a sensitive way.
It is harmful legislation. It will harm women, will hurt women, will
lead to women dying, will lead to women suffering infertility,
suffering paralysis, and all needlessly.
So what we have done in this legislation, which I am very proud of,
is to basically codify Roe versus Wade. In other words, we support a
woman's right to choose with the understanding that after viability,
when the fetus can live outside the womb with or without life support,
we want to be very careful that there should be no abortion at all
unless the woman's life is threatened, or her health is threatened, and
in those cases where a doctor so determines and the woman's family so
agrees, that that woman will be able to terminate that pregnancy in a
way that protects her life and her health.
What we are attempting to do in the course of this debate is to put a
woman's face back on this issue because, when you listen to the other
side, the woman is completely forgotten. As I said yesterday, the day
we pass legislation that harms more than half of our population is the
day that I wonder what we are doing as a country.
I hope that the other side on this issue would join hands with us and
get this passed. We know the President would sign this bill. Then we
can tell the American people together that the only cases of late-term
abortion in this Nation that would be allowed is when the woman faces a
life-threatening situation, if the pregnancy continues, or one that is
so serious that action must be taken to terminate the pregnancy.
Senator Santorum would outlaw a particular procedure and not allow it
be used except in the most narrow circumstance.
I want to tell you what some doctors have said about this procedure
that Senator Santorum would ban.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is an
organization representing 37,000 physicians. As I have said in the
past, I know those of us who come to the U.S. Senate are pretty strong
people who believe in our views, who believe in ourselves, but we ought
to leave our egos at the door when it comes to protecting lives.
When it comes to medical emergencies, we do not have the capability
of deciding what procedure ought to be used in a hospital room. If you
were to ask your constituents, I don't care what party, or whether they
are Independent, Republican, Democratic, or whatever party they are
for, who would you rather have in the emergency room with you, Senator
Santorum, Senator Boxer, or the family doctor who is trained, who
understands the issue? I think they would say, ``I don't want any
politicians in the hospital room with me. I want the best physician
that I can find for my wife or for my daughter or for my niece. And I
want that doctor to have the full range of options,'' knowing that
there will never be an abortion in the late term unless the life or
health of the mother is at stake.
That is a pretty moderate course, it seems to me, a pretty reasonable
course. And that is the course of the Feinstein-Boxer-Moseley-Braun
bill.
Let me repeat, under our bill, there will be no late-term abortion,
no post-viability abortion unless the doctor determines that to protect
the woman's life and health he or she must terminate the pregnancy.
[[Page S4521]]
Senator Feinstein talked about Viki Wilson. I have her picture up
here behind me with her loving family. And I think it is worth
repeating the story.
In her 36th week of the pregnancy, the nursery was ready, the family
was anticipating the arrival of their new family member. Viki's doctor
ordered an ultrasound which detected something that all of her prenatal
testing had failed to detect. As Senator Feinstein told you, two-thirds
of her daughter's brain had formed outside the skull, and the doctors
feared that Viki's uterus would rupture in the birthing process leaving
Viki sterile. After consulting with other physicians, with their
clergy, with their God, in order to preserve Viki's fertility, they
made the painful choice to have this procedure that would be outlawed
under the Santorum bill.
Now you see Viki, who has protected her fertility, a decision made
with her doctor and her God. This procedure would be outlawed by the
Santorum bill.
The 37,000 gynecologists and obstetricians stated that this procedure
that would be outlawed under the Santorum bill ``may be the best or
most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the
life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in
consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular
circumstances, can make this decision. . .''
Today I received an additional letter that I want to share with my
colleagues from David Grimes, a physician in San Francisco, CA. He
tells the story--that he had never used this procedure that Senator
Santorum wants to outlaw. But he talks about it this way, and the time
that he did use it recently.
He says:
A woman in the Bay Area became seriously ill with
preeclampsia (which is toxemia of pregnancy) at 24 weeks'
gestation. She had a dangerous and extreme form of disease,
called HELLP syndrome . . . she had liver failure and
abnormal blood-clotting ability. The pregnancy had to be
terminated to save her life.
During several days spent unsuccessfully in attempts to
induce labor, her medical condition continued to deteriorate.
Finally, in desperation, the attending physician called me to
assist . . .
He said he accomplished the procedure in a manner of minutes with
very little blood loss.
She recovered quickly thereafter, and her physician
discharged her home in good condition after a few weeks.
He said:
. . . I received a lovely thank you note from her husband.
You know, this isn't only about women. It is about their loving
husbands and their loving fathers.
He ``received a . . . note from her husband thanking me for saving
his wife's life.''
And the doctor said:
In this instance, an intact D was the fastest and safest
option available to me and to the patient. Congress must not
take this option away.
So, yet--and I have many other letters from physicians--that is
exactly what this Congress is set to do. With the exception of 1
physician, who I don't believe is an OB-GYN, we have 99 people in here
who do not know a whit about being an obstetrician or gynecologist.
They don't have any training, at least that I know of.
I find it the height of--I don't even know the right word to use--the
``height of ego,'' I guess, to think that we would know more than a
physician, we would pass legislation that would take an option away
from a physician. I can't believe that we would be doing this.
I can tell you, I just had a community meeting in California. Maybe I
knew 2 people out of 700 people that came out to the community meeting.
The floor was open. It was their meeting. And not one of them stood up
in that meeting and said, ``Senator Boxer, you ought to go there and
outlaw medical procedures.''
What they told me is go back there and get that budget balanced,
educate our children, and preserve our freedoms.
So I have to say this is now the third time we have taken up this
debate. It is the third time. It is painful. It is difficult. The
reason I find it so painful is because in the name of saving pain, this
Congress is going to vote for a bill that is going to cause families
pain, and not just momentary pain, but long-lasting pain, because when
a woman loses her fertility it is long-lasting pain, or if a woman gets
paralyzed it is long-lasting pain.
I want to talk to you about a couple of other women:
Maureen Britell, a 30-year-old, Irish-Catholic mother of two, who
lives in Massachusetts. On February 17, Maureen and her husband were
awaiting--this is in 1994--joyously awaiting the birth of their second
child. On that date, when she was 5 months pregnant, a sonogram
determined that her daughter had no brain and could not live outside
the womb. Her doctor recommended termination of the pregnancy. The next
day a third-degree sonogram at the New England Medical Center in Boston
confirmed the diagnosis that the baby had no brain and was not viable.
Maureen and her family sought counsel from their parish priest,
Father Greg, who supported the decision to terminate the pregnancy. Let
me repeat that. Maureen and her family sought counsel from their parish
priest, Father Greg, who supported the decision to terminate the
pregnancy. They named their daughter Dahlia. She had a Catholic
funeral, and was buried at Otis Air Force Base in Cape Cod.
So Senators are going to interfere with the decision made by a
family, its doctor, and their God. And by the passage of the Santorum
legislation, if in fact it is going to pass, which indications are it
will, that is just what we are doing--the height of ego. ``We know
better than a doctor. We know better than a priest. We know better than
a rabbi. We are going to be in the hospital room. We are going to say
what medical procedures can't be performed.''
What is the next one? There are no pretty medical procedures, period.
What is the next one that we are going to stand up here and outlaw?
I want you to meet Eileen Sullivan.
Eileen Sullivan, with 10 brothers and sisters, runs a nursery school
in southern California. And she is an Irish-Catholic woman.
Eileen writes, ``For as long as I can remember, being in the company
of children was when I was happiest. So when my husband and I watched
the home pregnancy test slowly show a positive result, we were
ecstatic. After three years of trying to conceive a baby, I didn't
believe it. So I kept checking the test against the diagram on the
package. Sure enough, we had done it. We were going to have a baby.''
Eileen continues:
My long awaited pregnancy was easy and blissful. As I
charted my baby's growth week by week, the bond grew stronger
between us. Many nights I spoke to my baby, saying that I
accepted it just as it was, boy or girl, with dark eyes like
mine or blue like my husband's. I didn't care--I was just so
happy that we would finally be parents.
At 26 weeks, Eileen went to her obstetrician for a routine
ultrasound. After a few moments, her doctor got quiet and began to
focus intently on the monitor. The doctor confirmed that there was a
problem and sent Eileen and her husband to have tests immediately.
The Sullivans went to a genetic specialist for another ultrasound.
The doctor concluded that among other things: the baby's brain was
improperly formed and being pressured by a back-up of fluid. His head
was enlarged, his heart was malformed, his liver was malfunctioning,
and there was a dangerously low amount of amniotic fluid.
According to Eileen, for 2 hours the specialist detailed the baby's
anomalies. Eileen writes, ``My husband and I held one another and tried
to understand what was happening. This was a nightmare. We spoke to a
genetics counselor and had a battery of additional tests including an
amniocentesis and a placenta biopsy.''
She continues: ``When the tests came back, the prognosis was the
same--the anomalies were incompatible with life.''
``Not wanting to accept this,'' she writes, ``we went to another
specialist--a pediatric cardiologist. His prognosis was no better.
According to the cardiologist, our baby's heart condition was lethal
and he would not live.''
She continues: ``We wept. We discussed what we should do, what was
best and safest for myself and the baby. After all the talking was
over, we were faced with the hardest decision of our
[[Page S4522]]
lives, and we opted to do what we thought was right. We opted to
undergo a late-term abortion. Our long awaited, much anticipated baby
was not going to make it, and there was nothing we could do to change
that.''
Eileen continues: ``What we could do is choose the best way to end
our pregnancy and help improve our chances of future pregnancy. I had
had cervical cancer.''
She goes into all the problems and all the reasons why she had to
make this choice. She said, ``We chose * * * a safe, surgical procedure
that protected my health, spared my baby needless suffering and allowed
us to hold our child and say our goodbyes. This is the procedure that
would be banned by the legislation you are considering today.'' And she
says, ``Please leave these difficult medical decisions where they
belong--between women, their families and their doctors.''
So I think you have seen, Mr. President, that the women who have
undergone these surgeries wanted these children desperately. Their
husbands wanted these children desperately. They were religious, they
are religious women. Many of them say they do not consider themselves
pro-choice. But what we would do with the Santorum legislation is to
take away an option that saved their fertility, saved their health, and
perhaps even saved their lives.
Why on Earth would we do this? I believe the Feinstein-Boxer-Moseley-
Braun alternative is the sane way to go, the appropriate way to go. It
keeps these decisions where they belong, and yet it says the only time
that an abortion in the late term will be allowed would be when the
woman's life is in danger or her health is in danger. So I proudly
stand with my colleagues, and I urge my colleagues to be strong, to be
courageous. I listen to these ads. I read these ads. They are
misleading. They use hot button words, and I have to tell you, if you
look at this and you look at these women, this, my friends, is the
truth. These women stand and tell the truth. Let us stand with them.
I thank you, I say to my friend and colleague, and I yield the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.
Mr. President, there are so many things I would like to say, but let
me just start with one at a time, and that is the pictures the Senator
from California put up here of women who have been in situations where
they were faced with a fetal abnormality and were convinced,
unfortunately, by some genetics counselors and others to have an
abortion as their option.
Let me show you a picture of someone who wasn't convinced by genetics
counselors that that was her only option. That is Donna Joy Watts. I
talked about her yesterday. She had the same condition as two of the
women that Senator Boxer just described--same condition. Her mother had
to go to four hospitals to find someone who would not do what the
people that Senator Boxer just talked about did, which is terminate the
pregnancy, abort the child. She said no. She says, I'm going to let my
child live in the fullness of what God has planned for her. I am not
going to end her life. I am not going to make the decision to end her
life, like any other mother or father would not, if they were faced
with a sick child, kill them. Why would you kill your child? Because
your child is sick? Because your child might not live long? Why kill
your child?
Lori Watts and Donny Watts said, no, we are not going to kill our
child. We are going to do what we can. We are going to treat her with
dignity and respect like any other member of our family. We are going
to love her and do everything we can to support her.
So they delivered Donna Joy Watts. The doctors would not treat her.
They said she was going to die. They would not even feed her for 3
days. You want to talk about all these doctors who are so concerned
about saving lives. Then why are we debating physician-assisted suicide
if all these doctors are so concerned about saving lives? People who
perform abortions are not principally concerned about saving lives.
They are worried about malpractice concerns, particularly if you have a
difficult pregnancy. They are worried about a whole lot of other
things. But I would suggest, unfortunately, there are too many--if
there is one, there is too many--doctors out there who--after she was
born, doctors were referring to Donna Joy as a fetus laying there
alive, breathing--a fetus.
So do not tell me, do not tell me that all these caring,
compassionate doctors would, of course, do everything to save a child's
life. It is not true. God, I wish it were true. And, unfortunately, bad
advice is given out by people who either do not know, have not taken
the time to understand what options are available, what technology has
been developed, or do not care or just are afraid to deal with the
problem.
Mr. and Mrs. Watts had to go to four hospitals just to find a place
to have her delivered. They would not deliver her. They would abort
her. They would do a partial-birth abortion. In fact, they offered a
partial-birth abortion, but they would not deliver her.
So do not bring your pictures up here and claim that is the only
choice. This is not a choice. These are little babies. And they are
asking us to help them now. This is not Senator Rick Santorum,
nonphysician, speaking. Over 400 obstetricians and gynecologists--and
by the way, the person who designed this barbaric procedure that we are
debating was not an obstetrician. You hear so much about all these
experts. He was not an expert. He is a family practitioner who does
abortions, and you can only question as to why he spends all his time
doing abortions instead of taking care of families. But that is what he
does. He does abortions.
This is not taught in any medical school. It is not in any peer
review literature. It is not done anywhere but abortion places. It is
not done in hospitals that deal with high-risk pregnancies. Ask the
question. I will ask it. Can you find a place that deals with high-risk
pregnancies that has perinatologists at their unit that does partial-
birth abortions?
The answer is no, zero. No hospitals do this procedure. If this is a
procedure that was so important to be kept alive and so important to be
an option, then why don't the experts, the people who study high-risk
pregnancies, perform this? If this was the best choice--and the Senator
from California suggested that in fact would be the only choice in
certain cases. Yesterday, she listed five conditions in which this
would be the only choice. Now, if you are a perinatologist, someone who
deals in late-term pregnancies, and you are not performing this--you
are basically telling the perinatologists that they are doing
malpractice because they are not doing this procedure.
Let me talk to you about one perinatologist who wrote to me. This is
Dr. Steve Calvin, assistant professor, Division of Maternal-Fetal
Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of
Minnesota in Minneapolis:
As a specialist in Maternal-Fetal Medicine, I practice with
the busiest group of perinatologists--
That is obstetricians who work on high-risk pregnancies and deal with
these fetal problems--
in the upper midwest.
The busiest group of perinatologists in the upper Midwest.
I also teach obstetrics to medical students and residents.
I know of no instances when the killing of a partially born
baby was necessary to accomplish delivery in any of the five
medical situations listed by Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein claims that partial-birth abortion is
necessary to end a pregnancy in the following five
situations: Fetal hydrocephaly, fetal arthrogryposis,
maternal cardiac problems (including congestive heart
failure), maternal kidney disease and severe maternal
hypertension.
The first two conditions are significant fetal problems.
Hydrocephalus--
And that is exactly, by the way, what Donna Joy Watts had--
is an increased amount of cerebrospinal fluid that can cause
enlargement of the head and arthrogryposis includes
deformities of the fetal limbs and spine. Significant as
these abnormalities may be, they do not require the killing
of a partially born fetus. Delivery can be accomplished by
other means that are safer for the mother--
I repeat, ``safer for the mother''--
and give the fetus at least a chance of survival.
And, I might add, apart from this, some dignity, some dignity to one
of our children, one of our humankind, in the case of the family, one
of their family.
[[Page S4523]]
The other three conditions are maternal illnesses that may
indeed require ending the pregnancy. But, as with the fetal
problems, there is no reason that the treatment must include
suctioning out the brain of a partially born baby.
One of my biggest concerns is that the opponents of this
ban are claiming that this destructive procedure is the only
method of ending a pregnancy. Abortion supporters have
previously acknowledged that surgical mid-trimester and late-
term abortions are more dangerous to a woman's health than
induction of labor.
Let me read this again.
Abortion supporters have previously acknowledged that
surgical mid-trimester and late-term abortions are more
dangerous to a woman's health than induction of labor. Their
concern for women's health and safety apparently ends when
there is any threat to unrestricted abortion.
Signed Steve Calvin, MD.
And I will put up this quote from 400 doctors, over 400 doctors,
including the former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop. I suggest these
over 400 doctors, many of them members of ACOG, which is American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, also are concerned about
maternal health. Many of these are perinatologists, people who
specialize in high-risk pregnancies. I would think they would be
concerned about maternal health. Many of these doctors are pro-choice
and they said the following clearly.
While it may become necessary, in the second or third
trimester, to end a pregnancy in order to protect the
mother's life or health, abortion is never required.
Now, they did not say it should be an option. They said never. These
are experts. Senator Boxer says, well, Rick Santorum should not be in
the operating room. I would not want to be in the operating room. I
would pass out if I was in the operating room. The fact of the matter
is I am not going to be in the operating room. These folks are. This is
what they say. ``Never,'' not sometimes, ``never required.''
It is never medically necessary, in order to preserve a
woman's life, health or future fertility, to deliberately
kill an unborn child in the second or third trimester, and
certainly--
Underline certainly--
not by mostly delivering the child before putting him or her
to death.
This last line is very important.
What is required in the circumstances specified by Senator
Daschle [Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein] is separation of
the child from the mother, not the death of the child.
In other words, there may be cases where you must separate the child
from the mother, you must deliver the baby, either by induction and
delivery, vaginally or by cesarean section, but in no case, according
to a doctor--and I ask if you can produce one perinatologist who would
say that it is necessary, absolutely necessary, to kill the child in
order to protect the life and the health of the mother, because I have
hundreds who say it is not, hundreds from the finest universities and
the finest medical schools all over this country who say absolutely,
definitively--and the former Surgeon General of the United States, C.
Everett Koop--never necessary, never necessary.
Now, we also have to talk about all these cases that we are concerned
about the mother's health. We make the assumption that abortion is an
option to preserve the mother's health or life. I heard that over and
over again. It has to be out there in late trimesters, after 20 weeks.
Let me share a couple of statistics that shed some light on this.
This was referred to by Dr. Calvin. I want to back it up by the
statistics. This is from the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Who are they?
They signed letters with NARAL and Planned Parenthood and all these
other abortion groups, in support of this procedure, in support of
every liberalization you can possibly imagine. They are a pro-choice,
some would even suggest pro-abortion group. Here is what they say.
The risk of death associated with abortion increases with
the length of pregnancy, from 1 death in every 600,000
abortions at 8 or fewer weeks to 1 per 17,000 at 16-20 weeks,
and [after 20 weeks, when partial-birth abortions are
performed, they are considered late-term abortions after 20
weeks] 1 per 6,000 at 21 or more weeks.
It is 100 times more likely that a mother will die than if the
abortion were performed in the first 8 weeks. It is 100 times more
likely.
This is what these people are advocating, performing abortions. Let
me throw one statistic on top of that. I will show it. I will read it.
``It should be noted that at 21 weeks and after, abortion is twice as
risky for women as childbirth: The risk of maternal death is 1 in 6,000
for abortion and 1 in 13,000 for childbirth.''
So, aborting a child through partial-birth abortion, late in term, is
statistically more dangerous to the life of the woman than inducing
labor. In other words, not only is it preferential for our society not
to kill children who should be given a chance at birth, late, when
there may be a chance of viability or just when they should have at
least some dignity attached to their life, but it is more dangerous to
abort than it is to induce labor or to have a cesarean section. It is
more dangerous.
The folks who say they are protecting a woman's health and life are
arguing for procedures that do the exact opposite. Facts: I know we do
not like to talk about facts when it comes to abortion. We like to put
up pictures of nice families and warm little babies, that somehow or
another, this family is better off because of an abortion. The fact is
by having an abortion she was twice as likely to die and not be in that
picture. That is the fact. We do not want to talk about that. We want
to make sure the right of abortion is paramount among all rights.
Because that is what this amendment does--nothing. It lets there be
abortion on demand, anytime, anywhere, on anybody. That is what this
amendment does. It has no restrictions. It is an exception that is not
an exception.
It is an exception that says that, while we cannot have postviability
abortions except for the health of the mother-- let me tell you what
Dr. Warren Hern, who wrote the definitive textbook on abortion, called
``Abortion Practice,'' said. Here it is: ``Abortion Practice,'' Warren
M. Hern, from Colorado. My understanding is this is sort of the
definitive textbook on teaching abortions. He does second- and third-
trimester abortions and is very outspoken on this subject. He does not
use partial-birth abortion, I might add; does not see it as a
recognized procedure. But this is what an abortionist who does late-
term abortions--in fact, has people come from all over the world to
have abortions done by him--this is what he said about, not the Boxer-
Feinstein amendment but the Daschle amendment, which we are going to
debate next:
I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's
life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health.
In other words, abortion on demand, anytime during pregnancy. And he
believes this. Some would say you are relying on the doctor's bad
faith--no. He believes this. And he has a right to believe it. If you
look at the statistics, I mean, you know, unfortunately some women do
die as a result of pregnancy and, therefore, he could say legitimately
there is a risk. Any pregnancy is a risk. It may be a small risk, but
it is a risk. And all these bills require, that we are going to hear
today, is just a risk. Not a big risk, a risk.
So what we have are limitations without limits. What we have is a
farce, to try to fool all of you, to try to fool the press. It has done
a very good job fooling the press. We have wonderful headlines about
how we are trying to step forward and do something dramatic on limiting
late-term abortions. Phooey, we have a step forward into the realm of
political chicanery, of sham, of obfuscation, illusion, that does
nothing but protect the politician at the risk of the baby. That is
what is going on here. That is what is going on all day. You are going
to hear a lot of it. You are going to hear, ``Oh, we need to do this,
we need to protect this.'' Here are the facts as pointed out by their
side. I am using their facts. The Alan Guttmacher Institute--their
numbers.
Even when we debate with their information they cannot refute it. The
fact of the matter is, there is no reason to do a partial-birth
abortion and there is every reason in the world to stop it. It is a
dehumanizing procedure. You wonder why we have a society that just is
becoming adrift, that does not know right from wrong, that does not
have any sense of justice, that does not have--we do not have any
compassion for each other? I will give you a good example why that
happens. Because on the floor of the U.S. Senate we are debating a
procedure where we can kill a
[[Page S4524]]
little innocent baby that is completely delivered from the mother
except for the head. It is moving outside of the mother, a little baby
who has done nothing wrong to anybody, and we are saying, ``You don't
deserve to live.''
Give people like Donna Joy Watts a fighting chance. It will ennoble
us all. We can look to Donna Joy and her family and say there are
parents who showed the best, who showed the best in our hearts, who
showed the willingness to fight for life, for things that are at the
core of who we are as humanity. Let that spirit come back into American
culture. Stop this culture of death and self-centeredness and focus in
on life and dignity. What about poking scissors in the base of a little
baby's skull and suctioning its brains out is dignifying the human
being? You would not do that to a dog or an old cat that you wanted to
put to sleep. You would not do it to a criminal who has killed 30 or 40
people. And you do it to a little baby who has done nothing wrong and
just wants a chance, for however long it may be--and it may not be
long--but, for however long, the dignity of life.
The Senator from California talks about the long-lasting pain to the
family that we would be imposing on them. What is so painful about
looking at yourself in the mirror and saying: ``I have done everything
I can to help my little girl or my little boy have a chance at life. I
gave them every chance. I loved them as much as I possibly could in the
time that God gave us.'' What is so painful about that?
I will tell you pain. Facing, every day, that you killed your son or
daughter for no reason, that is a pain I would not want to live with.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield to me for a question?
Mr. SANTORUM. Not yet.
Mrs. BOXER. Let me know. I will be happy to wait until you are ready.
Thank you.
Mr. SANTORUM. There are great pains out there when you are dealing
with a child that is not going to live. It hurts. And it is troubling.
But you will find, not only from my experience but from the experience
of doctors who deal with this all the time, that treating your son or
daughter with dignity, loving them as much as you can for as long as
you can--does not make the pain go away. It never goes away. When you
lose a child it never, ever goes away. But it helps you live with it.
What we are doing today is, hopefully, banning a procedure and
explaining to all of those unfortunate people who may be dealing today,
right now, with this situation, that there is a better way for
everyone. Let us do the better way. Let us do the right thing. Let us
do the just thing for everyone.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Oklahoma is
recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me just make a couple of comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the time.
Does the Senator from Pennsylvania yield time to the Senator from
Oklahoma?
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding time.
I think he made one of the best presentations I have heard on the floor
of this body. I want to say that, when he deals with the facts, he is
dealing with the facts but, you know, we are also dealing today with
perceptions. I tried to make a list of those things I have heard over
and over. There is a lot of redundancy on this floor but there are some
things that have not been stated. I would like to share a couple of
those with you.
I am going to do something that is a little unusual, because I am
going to read some Scriptures to you. It is not totally unprecedented
in this body. In fact, the distinguished senior Senator from West
Virginia does it quite often. So I would like to read a couple of
Scriptures, just for those who care. Anyone who does not, don't listen.
First of all, I have used this a number of times, Jeremiah 1:35 says,
``Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I
sanctified you.''
Or the 139th Psalm, no matter which interpretation you use, it makes
it very clear when life begins.
Then, I was, not too long ago, at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
I had been to the museum in Jerusalem, and I found the same thing was
printed on the last brick as you are going through. This is Deuteronomy
30, verse 19. It said: ``I call heaven and earth as witnesses today
against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and
cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may
live.''
And, last, I am always concerned that something that is as dramatic
and is as significant as this issue is going to go unnoticed; that
maybe there are Senators out there who are not really into this issue
and they might want to vote the party line, or they might want to say,
well, maybe there aren't as many of these procedures out there, so they
just really are not knowledgeable of the subject. So, I will read
Proverbs 24, 11 and 12:
Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death. Don't
stand back and let them die. Don't try to disclaim
responsibility by saying you didn't know about it, for God
knows. Who knows all hearts knows yours, and He knew that you
know.
Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator from Massachusetts who
said it does not do any good if we pass this because the President is
going to veto it anyway. But I suggest to you that the President may
not veto it, and if he does veto it, maybe some people will come over
who were not here a year ago on this side of the aisle.
Ron Fitzsimmons who just last year insisted that the number of
partial birth abortions were a relative handful now admits ``I lied
through my teeth.''
He was lying. So if the President is predicating his decision to veto
this ban on the basis of what was told to him by Ron Fitzsimmons, there
is every reason he could turn around on the issue. I suggest also that
we are talking now not just about a procedure, but a culture.
I have a very good friend by the name of Charles W. Colson who gave
these remarks upon winning the prestigious Templeton Prize for
contribution to religion. Listen very carefully. He puts it all
together, not isolating one procedure or one issue:
Courts strike down even perfunctory prayers, and we are
surprised that schools, bristling with barbed wire, look more
like prisons than prisons do. Universities reject the very
idea of truth, and we are shocked when their best and
brightest loot and betray. Celebrities mock the traditional
family, even revile it as a form of slavery, and we are
appalled at the tragedy of broken homes and millions of unwed
mothers. The media celebrate sex without responsibility, and
we are horrified by plagues. Our lawmakers justify the taking
of innocent lives in sterile clinics, and we are terrorized
by the disregard for life in blood-soaked streets.
I think that kind of puts it into a context, which we are now
approaching, that this is not just a normal type of an abortion.
I have a great deal of respect for one of the most intellectual
Members of this body. It is Senator Patrick Moynihan from New York, who
is a self-proclaimed pro-choice Senator. He said:
And now we have testimony that it is not just too close to
infanticide, it is infanticide, and one would be too many.
This is where we get into the numbers game. I heard it said on this
floor many times that we are talking about maybe 1 percent or maybe
talking about those that are in the ninth month may be an infinitesimal
number. But, in fact, one is too many. It was said on the floor that we
may be only talking about 200 lives being taken during the normal
delivery process. That is when a baby is given a natural birth and,
yet, they take the life by using this barbaric procedure. We have all
kinds of documentation that it is being done in
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1997
(Senate - May 15, 1997)
Text of this article available as:
[Pages S4517-S4575]
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1997
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to H.R. 1122, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1122) to amend title 18, United States Code,
to ban partial-birth abortions.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Under the previous order, the
Senator from California is recognized to call up an amendment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
Amendment No. 288
(Purpose: To prohibit certain abortions)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to begin this debate by
sending an amendment to the desk. This amendment is sent on behalf of
myself, Senator Boxer, and Senator Moseley-Braun.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself,
Mrs. Boxer, and Ms. Moseley-Braun proposes an amendment
numbered 288.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Post-Viability Abortion
Restriction Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN ABORTIONS.
(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful, in or affecting
interstate or foreign commerce, for
[[Page S4518]]
a physician knowingly to perform an abortion after the fetus
has become viable.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply if, in the
medical judgment of the attending physician, the abortion is
necessary to preserve the life of the woman or to avert
serious adverse health consequences to the woman.
SEC. 3. CIVIL PENALTIES.
(a) Action by Attorney General.--The Attorney General, the
Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or
any Assistant Attorney General or United States Attorney
specifically designated by the Attorney General (referred to
in this Act as the ``appropriate official''), may commence a
civil action under this subsection in any appropriate United
States district court to enforce the provisions of this Act.
(b) Relief.--
(1) First violation.--In an action commenced under
subsection (a), if the court finds that the respondent in the
action has violated a provision of this Act, the court shall
assess a civil penalty against the respondent in an amount
not exceeding $100,000, and refer the case to the State
medical licensing authority for consideration of suspension
of the respondent's medical license.
(2) Second violation.--If a respondent in an action
commenced under subsection (a) has been found to have
violated a provision of this Act on a prior occasion, the
court shall assess a civil penalty against the respondent in
an amount not exceeding $250,000, and refer the case to the
State medical licensing authority for consideration of
revocation of the respondent's medical license.
(c) Certification Requirements.--
(1) In general.--At the time of the commencement of an
action under subsection (a), the appropriate official shall
certify to the court involved that the appropriate official--
(A) has provided notification in writing of the alleged
violation of this Act, at least 30 calendar days prior to the
filing of such action, to the attorney general or chief legal
officer of the appropriate State or political subdivision;
and
(B) believes that such an action by the United States is in
the public interest and necessary to secure substantial
justice.
(2) Limitation.--No woman who has had an abortion after
fetal viability may be penalized under this Act for a
conspiracy to violate this section or for an offense under
section 2, 3, 4, or 1512 of title 18, United States Code.
SEC. 4. REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall establish regulations--
(1) requiring an attending physician described in section
2(b) to certify that, in the best medical judgment of the
physician, the abortion described in section 2(b) was
medically necessary to preserve the life or to avert serious
adverse health consequences to the woman involved, and to
describe the medical indications supporting the judgment; and
(2) to ensure the confidentiality of all information
submitted pursuant to a certification by a physician under
paragraph (1).
(b) State Regulations and Procedures.--The regulations
described in subsection (a) shall not apply in a State that
has established regulations described in subsection (a).
SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit State or
local governments from regulating, restricting, or
prohibiting post-viability abortions to the extent permitted
by the Constitution of the United States.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer a substitute amendment
to H.R. 1122, which, as I said, is cosponsored by Senators Boxer and
Moseley-Braun. The amendment we offer is presented as an alternative to
the House-passed bill on so-called partial-birth abortions and as an
alternative to the Daschle substitute as well.
My colleagues and I offer this amendment for one reason: We very much
believe that any legislation put forward by Congress that restricts
access to abortions or to a particular medical procedure must be
constitutional and must contain sufficient protections for a woman's
health. The Feinstein-Boxer-Moseley-Braun bill provides that protection
while instituting a ban on post-viability abortions similar to that in
the Daschle bill.
Our bill does three things.
First, it prohibits all abortions after a fetus has become viable or
able to live independently outside of the mother's womb.
Second, it provides an exception for cases where, in the medical
judgment of a physician, an abortion is necessary to preserve the life
of the mother or to prevent serious adverse health consequences to the
mother.
And third, it provides stringent civil penalties for physicians
performing post-viability abortions in the absence of compelling
medical reasons.
The penalties are limited to the physician and include for the first
offense a fine of $100,000, and referral to a State licensing board for
possible suspension of the medical license.
For the second offense, the fine would be up to $250,000, with
referral to the State licensing board for possible revocation of
license.
There is no health exception in H.R. 1122, known as the Santorum
bill. And we do not believe that the health exception provided in the
Daschle bill is sufficient, nor do we believe that it will meet the
constitutional test.
Let me begin by speaking of my opposition to the House bill. And let
me begin by pleading with anyone listening to this debate to read the
bill--read H.R. 1122. It is short. It is easy to read. I want to quote
from page 2 of that bill to illustrate what this bill does.
Let me begin on line 9:
Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and
thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
The bill refers to a ``partial-birth abortion,'' which is a term not
existing in medical literature or medical texts. So let us find out
what a partial-birth abortion is. And we turn to line 19 of page 2 for
that description:
As used in this section, the term ``partial-birth
abortion'' means an abortion in which the person performing
the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus
before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.
The issue here is clear. We heard yesterday on this floor a vivid
description of a procedure, a procedure known as ``intact D''
Nowhere in House Resolution 1122 are ``intact D'' or ``intact D''
or any medical procedure referred to. Instead, we have a term not
existent in medical science anywhere called ``partial-birth abortion.''
Now, anyone who is familiar with a woman's physiology knows that this
term can be used to deny second-trimester and third-trimester
abortions--virtually, I believe, all of them.
If the concern of the authors of this legislation were truly in fact
to prohibit or ban one specific procedure, why would they not spell out
what the procedure is in legislative language just as they have
graphically spelled out the procedure on the Senate floor? Why? Why not
do that?
I believe there is a reason why they did not do that. And the reason
is, that I sincerely believe that this bill is meant to do much more,
much more than simply ban a procedure known as intact D or intact
D I believe that this bill is essentially a Trojan horse, a Trojan
horse in the sense that it is not at all what it seems to be on the
outside.
If you look on the inside, which means opening the page of the bill,
you will see that this bill is the first major legislative thrust to
make abortion in the United States of America illegal.
I stated yesterday on the floor that we are really a product of our
live's experiences. And my life's experiences that have caused me to be
essentially pro-choice are essentially threefold.
The first, my days in college at Stanford University, days when I
remember a bright young woman who committed suicide because she was
pregnant and abortion was illegal in the United States. And I also
remember the passing of a plate in a college dormitory so that another
friend could go to Mexico for an abortion. I remember that well.
My second life experience was in the early 1960's at the California
Institution for Women, the women's prison in California for women
convicted of felonies, where I set sentences and granted paroles to
women convicted of providing abortions. I remember this well because
the only way a case really came to the attention of the authorities was
either through the morbidity or the mortality of the patient.
And I remember the graphic stories in those cumulative summaries that
were given to us prior to term setting, of what happened to women who
were victims of illegal abortions. And I remember that the women who
provided the abortions would leave and come back and commit the same
crime again because of the importunings of other women.
And the third graphic experience for me was becoming a grandmother
and finding out that my daughter in her pregnancy had an unexpected,
very serious, potentially life-threatening problem, and realizing how
surprised I was not to know that this could happen in this day and age.
But it did happen.
[[Page S4519]]
My story--my daughter's story--came out fine because today I have a
bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and wonderful, light of my life, in the
form of a 41/2-year-old granddaughter by the name of Eileen.
But I learned that there can be unpredictable occurrences, and that
when we legislate--in a piece of paper that becomes an abiding law
enforced everywhere throughout the United States of America--we ought
to legislate with the knowledge that human life and human experience
has many permutations that are unexpected and unanticipated.
I view H.R. 1122 as doing much, much more than banning a simple
procedure. That procedure is not mentioned anywhere in this piece of
legislation. But it does set up the basis for lawsuit after lawsuit
against any physician that might practice and might perform a second-
trimester abortion. Every other type of abortion in some way has the
head of the fetus coming through the birth canal. And then the case is,
at what point is that fetus still living or not living? And so I think
it is a potentially very dangerous piece of legislation in that regard.
I mentioned yesterday that I basically do not believe that intact D
or intact D should be used, that there are other forms of abortion.
That is my personal belief. And I believe that the AMA is on its way in
a medical venue of taking some steps to limit it. We all know we are
talking about less than 1 percent of all of the abortions that take
place in this country, in any event.
So the question is, what do we do? What kind of legislation do we
present that recognizes the exigencies, the human trials, the
difficulties that a woman can have?
Yesterday, I mentioned a young nurse; her name is Viki Wilson. When I
was a county supervisor and mayor, I worked with her mother, Susan
Wilson, who was a supervisor from Santa Clara County. Viki Wilson is a
nurse, married to a doctor. In her 36th week she had a sonogram and she
found out she had a severely deformed baby with its brain outside its
skull. She learned that the contractions she was having were actually
seizures that the child was having and that the child was incompatible
of sustaining life outside of the womb.
She went to a doctor and her doctor recommended the particular
procedure that is under siege here today, as the procedure, at that
stage of her pregnancy, that would be most protective of her health. I
cannot tell you whether it was or not. I am not a physician. There is
only one physician in this body who might know. Yet, we are going to
legislate, in a bill that is drafted to be so broad, that it can impact
much more than one procedure.
The amendment that the three of us present to this body today, we
believe, comports with Roe versus Wade. We believe it would not put in
jeopardy every second- and third-trimester abortion. We believe it
would prohibit every third-trimester abortion unless the life and the
health, as defined by serious adverse health consequences to the
mother, were at risk, and that this decision would be made by the
physician and the woman, which I think is the appropriate remedy for
this issue.
I think this is a very difficult debate because most people have not
read the bill before the Senate, H.R. 1122. Most people really do not
understand the whole panoply of human ills that can take place in a
pregnancy.
I believe the AMA, in the recent paper they have put forward, very
clearly indicates they believe that, with few exceptions, this
procedure that is at question should not be used. However, they are
not--and I think rightly so--not ready to sacrifice the integrity of
the medical profession to say that no doctor, no matter what the
situation is, no matter what the physiology of the woman may be, no
matter that she may not be able to have another procedure, that she
might be adversely impacted healthwise, cannot, no matter what the
situation is, have this procedure as a remedy.
Mr. President, we present to you a bill that we believe is
constitutional, a bill that would ban all third-trimester abortions,
unless the life and health of the woman, as defined as serious adverse
health consequences, were threatened. The bill includes very strong
civil penalties, which we believe would be a substantial deterrent to
the performance of any third-trimester abortions unless there is a very
serious medical need.
Mr. President, I notice my distinguished colleague, and I ask the
Senator from Massachusetts how much time he desires.
Mr. KENNEDY. I would like 10 minutes, and I appreciate the courtesy,
but I expect, Mr. President, that we are perhaps alternating back and
forth.
I see Senator DeWine, as well as Senator Santorum.
Mr. SANTORUM. I will do a unanimous-consent request and then be happy
to let the Senator from Massachusetts speak.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Steven
Schlesinger, a detailee on the Judiciary Committee, and Michelle
Kitchen, a member of my staff, be permitted privileges of the floor for
the duration of the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that the Republican
leadership has chosen to force this debate on the same confrontational
and unconstitutional legislation that President Clinton vetoed last
year, when reasonable and constitutional alternatives are so obviously
available. It is clear that the primary purpose of the Republican
leaders is not to regulate late-term abortions, but to roll back the
protections for women guaranteed by the Supreme Court.
If the goal is to pass effective legislation, the sponsors of the
Santorum bill know they must meet the constitutional requirments for
protecting of a woman's right to choose. President Clinton has made
clear that he cannot and will not accept a ban on any procedure that
represents the best hope for a woman to avoid serious risks to her
health. The bill vetoed last year and the bill before us today are
identical, and they clearly fail to provide these needed protections
for women.
The Supreme Court rulings in the Roe and Casey decisions prohibit
Congress and the States from imposing an ``undue burden'' on a woman's
right to choose to have an abortion at any time up to the point where
the developing fetus reaches the stage of viability.
Governments can constitutionally limit abortions after the stage of
viability, as long as the limitations contain exceptions to protect the
life and the health of the woman.
This bill flunks that clear constitutional test in two ways. It
imposes an undue burden--a flat prohibition--on a woman's
constitutional right to an abortion before fetal viability. And it
impermissibly limits the right to an abortion after fetal viability, by
excluding any protection whatsoever for the woman's health.
Given the clear constitutional problems with this bill, it is fair to
ask, why do Republicans insist that we send it to the President, for
another certain veto, when reasonable alternatives are available.
In fact, there is little need for any Federal legislation in this
area because 41 States already ban late-term abortions. Massachusetts
has prohibited these abortions except when the woman's life is in
danger or ``the continuation of the pregnancy would impose a
substantial risk of grave impairment to the woman's physical or mental
health.'' Many other States have similar restrictions. There is no
evidence that the States are not enforcing their laws.
Supporters of the Republican bill also claim that the public and
Congress were misled about the actual number of abortions performed by
the procedure that would be banned by their bill. But very few, if any,
of us in the last Congress were misled about the facts. Only a few
hundred of these procedures are performed after viability, and they are
performed in cases where the fetus cannot survive because of a severe
medical abnormality, or where there is a serious threat to the life or
the health of the woman.
It was clearly reported during last year's debate that the procedure
was also used before the stage of viability, and that the number of
such cases was larger, probably amounting to several thousand a year.
But all of us were also
[[Page S4520]]
aware that Congress cannot constitutionally ban the procedure at that
stage.
We know that some doctors begin to use the particular procedure that
would be banned by the Republican bill at about 20 weeks of gestation,
which is well before the time when a fetus has the capacity for
survival outside the womb. Most authorities place the time of viability
at 24 to 26 weeks in a normal pregnancy. According to the best
available statistics, 99 percent of all abortions are performed before
20 weeks. Only about 1 percent of all abortions are performed after
that time, and two-thirds of those abortions are performed before the
23d week.
This information is provided by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and
used by the National Center for Health Statistics. It is the most
accurate information available.
Even so, it is difficult to draw a sharp dividing line on the
viability of a particular pregnancy. A great deal depends on the
prenatel care the woman is receiving. Low-birth weight babies reach
viability at later stages of pregnancy.
A further problem is that viability is to some extent a statistical
concept. At 21 weeks of a normal pregnancy, few if any fetuses can
survive. At 23 weeks about 25 percent survive. At 26 weeks about 50
percent survive.
A physician's decision relies on best medical judgment, but it is
hardly precise for a particular case. The real issue involves lives and
the health of women. The so-called partial-birth abortion bill would
not stop a single abortion. Instead, it would force women to use
another, possibly more dangerous procedure if they must terminate their
pregnancy to preserve their health.
Of course, the sponsors of this bill continue to argue that there are
no circumstances in which a procedure banned by the bill is necessary
to preserve a woman's health. And, even worse, some supporters don't
seem to care. Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics, an
antiabortion organization based in Denton TX, told the Detroit Free
Press that the bill is ``a scam being perpetrated by people on our side
of the issue * * * for fund-raising purposes.''
It doesn't seem to matter to the proponents of this defective
Republican bill that women like Maureen Britell, Eileen Sullivan,
Coreen Costello, Erica Fox, Vikki Stella, Tammy Watts, Viki Wilson, and
others will be forced to risk serious health consequences if this bill
becomes law.
Doctor after doctor has told us that this procedure may be necessary
to preserve a woman's health. The American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists has said:
An intact D may be the best or most appropriate procedure
in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the
health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with
the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances
can make this decision. The intervention of legislative
bodies into medical decisionmaking is inappropriate, ill-
advised, and dangerous.
Perhaps if the Republican men in Congress were the ones to get
pregnant, they would show more compassion for the women who find
themselves in these tragic circumstances.
Take the case of Coreen Costello. After consulting numerous medical
experts and doing everything possible to save her child, Coreen had the
procedure that would be banned by this legislation. Based on that
experience, she gave the following testimony to the Senate Judiciary
Committee last year:
I hope you can put aside your political differences, your
positions on abortion, and your party affiliations and just
try to remember us. We are the ones who know. We are the
families that ache to hold our babies, to love them, to
nurture them. We are the families who will forever have a
hole in our hearts. We are the families that had to choose
how our babies would die * * * please put a stop to this
terrible bill. Families like mine are counting on you.
I oppose this legislation. Instead, I stand with Coreen Costello and
others whose lives and health must be protected. The alternative
proposed by Senator Snowe and Senator Daschle provides that protection,
and so does the alternative proposed by Senator Feinstein, Senator
Boxer and Senator Moseley-Braun. I intend to vote for these
alternatives, because they respect the Constitution, and above all they
respect the right of women and their doctors to make these difficult
and tragic decisions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. How much time is the Senator requesting?
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 15 minutes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 15 minutes to the
Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let me say how proud I am to stand with my
colleague, my senior Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, and
the senior Senator from Illinois, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, who has
just arrived on the floor, to speak in favor of the bill which really
addresses an issue that the American people want addressed. It does so
in a way that is constitutional. It does so in a way that is respectful
of women and their families.
When we approach this issue, we have very strong feelings in the
approach that is taken, in a sensitive way.
It is harmful legislation. It will harm women, will hurt women, will
lead to women dying, will lead to women suffering infertility,
suffering paralysis, and all needlessly.
So what we have done in this legislation, which I am very proud of,
is to basically codify Roe versus Wade. In other words, we support a
woman's right to choose with the understanding that after viability,
when the fetus can live outside the womb with or without life support,
we want to be very careful that there should be no abortion at all
unless the woman's life is threatened, or her health is threatened, and
in those cases where a doctor so determines and the woman's family so
agrees, that that woman will be able to terminate that pregnancy in a
way that protects her life and her health.
What we are attempting to do in the course of this debate is to put a
woman's face back on this issue because, when you listen to the other
side, the woman is completely forgotten. As I said yesterday, the day
we pass legislation that harms more than half of our population is the
day that I wonder what we are doing as a country.
I hope that the other side on this issue would join hands with us and
get this passed. We know the President would sign this bill. Then we
can tell the American people together that the only cases of late-term
abortion in this Nation that would be allowed is when the woman faces a
life-threatening situation, if the pregnancy continues, or one that is
so serious that action must be taken to terminate the pregnancy.
Senator Santorum would outlaw a particular procedure and not allow it
be used except in the most narrow circumstance.
I want to tell you what some doctors have said about this procedure
that Senator Santorum would ban.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is an
organization representing 37,000 physicians. As I have said in the
past, I know those of us who come to the U.S. Senate are pretty strong
people who believe in our views, who believe in ourselves, but we ought
to leave our egos at the door when it comes to protecting lives.
When it comes to medical emergencies, we do not have the capability
of deciding what procedure ought to be used in a hospital room. If you
were to ask your constituents, I don't care what party, or whether they
are Independent, Republican, Democratic, or whatever party they are
for, who would you rather have in the emergency room with you, Senator
Santorum, Senator Boxer, or the family doctor who is trained, who
understands the issue? I think they would say, ``I don't want any
politicians in the hospital room with me. I want the best physician
that I can find for my wife or for my daughter or for my niece. And I
want that doctor to have the full range of options,'' knowing that
there will never be an abortion in the late term unless the life or
health of the mother is at stake.
That is a pretty moderate course, it seems to me, a pretty reasonable
course. And that is the course of the Feinstein-Boxer-Moseley-Braun
bill.
Let me repeat, under our bill, there will be no late-term abortion,
no post-viability abortion unless the doctor determines that to protect
the woman's life and health he or she must terminate the pregnancy.
[[Page S4521]]
Senator Feinstein talked about Viki Wilson. I have her picture up
here behind me with her loving family. And I think it is worth
repeating the story.
In her 36th week of the pregnancy, the nursery was ready, the family
was anticipating the arrival of their new family member. Viki's doctor
ordered an ultrasound which detected something that all of her prenatal
testing had failed to detect. As Senator Feinstein told you, two-thirds
of her daughter's brain had formed outside the skull, and the doctors
feared that Viki's uterus would rupture in the birthing process leaving
Viki sterile. After consulting with other physicians, with their
clergy, with their God, in order to preserve Viki's fertility, they
made the painful choice to have this procedure that would be outlawed
under the Santorum bill.
Now you see Viki, who has protected her fertility, a decision made
with her doctor and her God. This procedure would be outlawed by the
Santorum bill.
The 37,000 gynecologists and obstetricians stated that this procedure
that would be outlawed under the Santorum bill ``may be the best or
most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the
life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in
consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular
circumstances, can make this decision. . .''
Today I received an additional letter that I want to share with my
colleagues from David Grimes, a physician in San Francisco, CA. He
tells the story--that he had never used this procedure that Senator
Santorum wants to outlaw. But he talks about it this way, and the time
that he did use it recently.
He says:
A woman in the Bay Area became seriously ill with
preeclampsia (which is toxemia of pregnancy) at 24 weeks'
gestation. She had a dangerous and extreme form of disease,
called HELLP syndrome . . . she had liver failure and
abnormal blood-clotting ability. The pregnancy had to be
terminated to save her life.
During several days spent unsuccessfully in attempts to
induce labor, her medical condition continued to deteriorate.
Finally, in desperation, the attending physician called me to
assist . . .
He said he accomplished the procedure in a manner of minutes with
very little blood loss.
She recovered quickly thereafter, and her physician
discharged her home in good condition after a few weeks.
He said:
. . . I received a lovely thank you note from her husband.
You know, this isn't only about women. It is about their loving
husbands and their loving fathers.
He ``received a . . . note from her husband thanking me for saving
his wife's life.''
And the doctor said:
In this instance, an intact D was the fastest and safest
option available to me and to the patient. Congress must not
take this option away.
So, yet--and I have many other letters from physicians--that is
exactly what this Congress is set to do. With the exception of 1
physician, who I don't believe is an OB-GYN, we have 99 people in here
who do not know a whit about being an obstetrician or gynecologist.
They don't have any training, at least that I know of.
I find it the height of--I don't even know the right word to use--the
``height of ego,'' I guess, to think that we would know more than a
physician, we would pass legislation that would take an option away
from a physician. I can't believe that we would be doing this.
I can tell you, I just had a community meeting in California. Maybe I
knew 2 people out of 700 people that came out to the community meeting.
The floor was open. It was their meeting. And not one of them stood up
in that meeting and said, ``Senator Boxer, you ought to go there and
outlaw medical procedures.''
What they told me is go back there and get that budget balanced,
educate our children, and preserve our freedoms.
So I have to say this is now the third time we have taken up this
debate. It is the third time. It is painful. It is difficult. The
reason I find it so painful is because in the name of saving pain, this
Congress is going to vote for a bill that is going to cause families
pain, and not just momentary pain, but long-lasting pain, because when
a woman loses her fertility it is long-lasting pain, or if a woman gets
paralyzed it is long-lasting pain.
I want to talk to you about a couple of other women:
Maureen Britell, a 30-year-old, Irish-Catholic mother of two, who
lives in Massachusetts. On February 17, Maureen and her husband were
awaiting--this is in 1994--joyously awaiting the birth of their second
child. On that date, when she was 5 months pregnant, a sonogram
determined that her daughter had no brain and could not live outside
the womb. Her doctor recommended termination of the pregnancy. The next
day a third-degree sonogram at the New England Medical Center in Boston
confirmed the diagnosis that the baby had no brain and was not viable.
Maureen and her family sought counsel from their parish priest,
Father Greg, who supported the decision to terminate the pregnancy. Let
me repeat that. Maureen and her family sought counsel from their parish
priest, Father Greg, who supported the decision to terminate the
pregnancy. They named their daughter Dahlia. She had a Catholic
funeral, and was buried at Otis Air Force Base in Cape Cod.
So Senators are going to interfere with the decision made by a
family, its doctor, and their God. And by the passage of the Santorum
legislation, if in fact it is going to pass, which indications are it
will, that is just what we are doing--the height of ego. ``We know
better than a doctor. We know better than a priest. We know better than
a rabbi. We are going to be in the hospital room. We are going to say
what medical procedures can't be performed.''
What is the next one? There are no pretty medical procedures, period.
What is the next one that we are going to stand up here and outlaw?
I want you to meet Eileen Sullivan.
Eileen Sullivan, with 10 brothers and sisters, runs a nursery school
in southern California. And she is an Irish-Catholic woman.
Eileen writes, ``For as long as I can remember, being in the company
of children was when I was happiest. So when my husband and I watched
the home pregnancy test slowly show a positive result, we were
ecstatic. After three years of trying to conceive a baby, I didn't
believe it. So I kept checking the test against the diagram on the
package. Sure enough, we had done it. We were going to have a baby.''
Eileen continues:
My long awaited pregnancy was easy and blissful. As I
charted my baby's growth week by week, the bond grew stronger
between us. Many nights I spoke to my baby, saying that I
accepted it just as it was, boy or girl, with dark eyes like
mine or blue like my husband's. I didn't care--I was just so
happy that we would finally be parents.
At 26 weeks, Eileen went to her obstetrician for a routine
ultrasound. After a few moments, her doctor got quiet and began to
focus intently on the monitor. The doctor confirmed that there was a
problem and sent Eileen and her husband to have tests immediately.
The Sullivans went to a genetic specialist for another ultrasound.
The doctor concluded that among other things: the baby's brain was
improperly formed and being pressured by a back-up of fluid. His head
was enlarged, his heart was malformed, his liver was malfunctioning,
and there was a dangerously low amount of amniotic fluid.
According to Eileen, for 2 hours the specialist detailed the baby's
anomalies. Eileen writes, ``My husband and I held one another and tried
to understand what was happening. This was a nightmare. We spoke to a
genetics counselor and had a battery of additional tests including an
amniocentesis and a placenta biopsy.''
She continues: ``When the tests came back, the prognosis was the
same--the anomalies were incompatible with life.''
``Not wanting to accept this,'' she writes, ``we went to another
specialist--a pediatric cardiologist. His prognosis was no better.
According to the cardiologist, our baby's heart condition was lethal
and he would not live.''
She continues: ``We wept. We discussed what we should do, what was
best and safest for myself and the baby. After all the talking was
over, we were faced with the hardest decision of our
[[Page S4522]]
lives, and we opted to do what we thought was right. We opted to
undergo a late-term abortion. Our long awaited, much anticipated baby
was not going to make it, and there was nothing we could do to change
that.''
Eileen continues: ``What we could do is choose the best way to end
our pregnancy and help improve our chances of future pregnancy. I had
had cervical cancer.''
She goes into all the problems and all the reasons why she had to
make this choice. She said, ``We chose * * * a safe, surgical procedure
that protected my health, spared my baby needless suffering and allowed
us to hold our child and say our goodbyes. This is the procedure that
would be banned by the legislation you are considering today.'' And she
says, ``Please leave these difficult medical decisions where they
belong--between women, their families and their doctors.''
So I think you have seen, Mr. President, that the women who have
undergone these surgeries wanted these children desperately. Their
husbands wanted these children desperately. They were religious, they
are religious women. Many of them say they do not consider themselves
pro-choice. But what we would do with the Santorum legislation is to
take away an option that saved their fertility, saved their health, and
perhaps even saved their lives.
Why on Earth would we do this? I believe the Feinstein-Boxer-Moseley-
Braun alternative is the sane way to go, the appropriate way to go. It
keeps these decisions where they belong, and yet it says the only time
that an abortion in the late term will be allowed would be when the
woman's life is in danger or her health is in danger. So I proudly
stand with my colleagues, and I urge my colleagues to be strong, to be
courageous. I listen to these ads. I read these ads. They are
misleading. They use hot button words, and I have to tell you, if you
look at this and you look at these women, this, my friends, is the
truth. These women stand and tell the truth. Let us stand with them.
I thank you, I say to my friend and colleague, and I yield the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.
Mr. President, there are so many things I would like to say, but let
me just start with one at a time, and that is the pictures the Senator
from California put up here of women who have been in situations where
they were faced with a fetal abnormality and were convinced,
unfortunately, by some genetics counselors and others to have an
abortion as their option.
Let me show you a picture of someone who wasn't convinced by genetics
counselors that that was her only option. That is Donna Joy Watts. I
talked about her yesterday. She had the same condition as two of the
women that Senator Boxer just described--same condition. Her mother had
to go to four hospitals to find someone who would not do what the
people that Senator Boxer just talked about did, which is terminate the
pregnancy, abort the child. She said no. She says, I'm going to let my
child live in the fullness of what God has planned for her. I am not
going to end her life. I am not going to make the decision to end her
life, like any other mother or father would not, if they were faced
with a sick child, kill them. Why would you kill your child? Because
your child is sick? Because your child might not live long? Why kill
your child?
Lori Watts and Donny Watts said, no, we are not going to kill our
child. We are going to do what we can. We are going to treat her with
dignity and respect like any other member of our family. We are going
to love her and do everything we can to support her.
So they delivered Donna Joy Watts. The doctors would not treat her.
They said she was going to die. They would not even feed her for 3
days. You want to talk about all these doctors who are so concerned
about saving lives. Then why are we debating physician-assisted suicide
if all these doctors are so concerned about saving lives? People who
perform abortions are not principally concerned about saving lives.
They are worried about malpractice concerns, particularly if you have a
difficult pregnancy. They are worried about a whole lot of other
things. But I would suggest, unfortunately, there are too many--if
there is one, there is too many--doctors out there who--after she was
born, doctors were referring to Donna Joy as a fetus laying there
alive, breathing--a fetus.
So do not tell me, do not tell me that all these caring,
compassionate doctors would, of course, do everything to save a child's
life. It is not true. God, I wish it were true. And, unfortunately, bad
advice is given out by people who either do not know, have not taken
the time to understand what options are available, what technology has
been developed, or do not care or just are afraid to deal with the
problem.
Mr. and Mrs. Watts had to go to four hospitals just to find a place
to have her delivered. They would not deliver her. They would abort
her. They would do a partial-birth abortion. In fact, they offered a
partial-birth abortion, but they would not deliver her.
So do not bring your pictures up here and claim that is the only
choice. This is not a choice. These are little babies. And they are
asking us to help them now. This is not Senator Rick Santorum,
nonphysician, speaking. Over 400 obstetricians and gynecologists--and
by the way, the person who designed this barbaric procedure that we are
debating was not an obstetrician. You hear so much about all these
experts. He was not an expert. He is a family practitioner who does
abortions, and you can only question as to why he spends all his time
doing abortions instead of taking care of families. But that is what he
does. He does abortions.
This is not taught in any medical school. It is not in any peer
review literature. It is not done anywhere but abortion places. It is
not done in hospitals that deal with high-risk pregnancies. Ask the
question. I will ask it. Can you find a place that deals with high-risk
pregnancies that has perinatologists at their unit that does partial-
birth abortions?
The answer is no, zero. No hospitals do this procedure. If this is a
procedure that was so important to be kept alive and so important to be
an option, then why don't the experts, the people who study high-risk
pregnancies, perform this? If this was the best choice--and the Senator
from California suggested that in fact would be the only choice in
certain cases. Yesterday, she listed five conditions in which this
would be the only choice. Now, if you are a perinatologist, someone who
deals in late-term pregnancies, and you are not performing this--you
are basically telling the perinatologists that they are doing
malpractice because they are not doing this procedure.
Let me talk to you about one perinatologist who wrote to me. This is
Dr. Steve Calvin, assistant professor, Division of Maternal-Fetal
Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of
Minnesota in Minneapolis:
As a specialist in Maternal-Fetal Medicine, I practice with
the busiest group of perinatologists--
That is obstetricians who work on high-risk pregnancies and deal with
these fetal problems--
in the upper midwest.
The busiest group of perinatologists in the upper Midwest.
I also teach obstetrics to medical students and residents.
I know of no instances when the killing of a partially born
baby was necessary to accomplish delivery in any of the five
medical situations listed by Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein claims that partial-birth abortion is
necessary to end a pregnancy in the following five
situations: Fetal hydrocephaly, fetal arthrogryposis,
maternal cardiac problems (including congestive heart
failure), maternal kidney disease and severe maternal
hypertension.
The first two conditions are significant fetal problems.
Hydrocephalus--
And that is exactly, by the way, what Donna Joy Watts had--
is an increased amount of cerebrospinal fluid that can cause
enlargement of the head and arthrogryposis includes
deformities of the fetal limbs and spine. Significant as
these abnormalities may be, they do not require the killing
of a partially born fetus. Delivery can be accomplished by
other means that are safer for the mother--
I repeat, ``safer for the mother''--
and give the fetus at least a chance of survival.
And, I might add, apart from this, some dignity, some dignity to one
of our children, one of our humankind, in the case of the family, one
of their family.
[[Page S4523]]
The other three conditions are maternal illnesses that may
indeed require ending the pregnancy. But, as with the fetal
problems, there is no reason that the treatment must include
suctioning out the brain of a partially born baby.
One of my biggest concerns is that the opponents of this
ban are claiming that this destructive procedure is the only
method of ending a pregnancy. Abortion supporters have
previously acknowledged that surgical mid-trimester and late-
term abortions are more dangerous to a woman's health than
induction of labor.
Let me read this again.
Abortion supporters have previously acknowledged that
surgical mid-trimester and late-term abortions are more
dangerous to a woman's health than induction of labor. Their
concern for women's health and safety apparently ends when
there is any threat to unrestricted abortion.
Signed Steve Calvin, MD.
And I will put up this quote from 400 doctors, over 400 doctors,
including the former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop. I suggest these
over 400 doctors, many of them members of ACOG, which is American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, also are concerned about
maternal health. Many of these are perinatologists, people who
specialize in high-risk pregnancies. I would think they would be
concerned about maternal health. Many of these doctors are pro-choice
and they said the following clearly.
While it may become necessary, in the second or third
trimester, to end a pregnancy in order to protect the
mother's life or health, abortion is never required.
Now, they did not say it should be an option. They said never. These
are experts. Senator Boxer says, well, Rick Santorum should not be in
the operating room. I would not want to be in the operating room. I
would pass out if I was in the operating room. The fact of the matter
is I am not going to be in the operating room. These folks are. This is
what they say. ``Never,'' not sometimes, ``never required.''
It is never medically necessary, in order to preserve a
woman's life, health or future fertility, to deliberately
kill an unborn child in the second or third trimester, and
certainly--
Underline certainly--
not by mostly delivering the child before putting him or her
to death.
This last line is very important.
What is required in the circumstances specified by Senator
Daschle [Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein] is separation of
the child from the mother, not the death of the child.
In other words, there may be cases where you must separate the child
from the mother, you must deliver the baby, either by induction and
delivery, vaginally or by cesarean section, but in no case, according
to a doctor--and I ask if you can produce one perinatologist who would
say that it is necessary, absolutely necessary, to kill the child in
order to protect the life and the health of the mother, because I have
hundreds who say it is not, hundreds from the finest universities and
the finest medical schools all over this country who say absolutely,
definitively--and the former Surgeon General of the United States, C.
Everett Koop--never necessary, never necessary.
Now, we also have to talk about all these cases that we are concerned
about the mother's health. We make the assumption that abortion is an
option to preserve the mother's health or life. I heard that over and
over again. It has to be out there in late trimesters, after 20 weeks.
Let me share a couple of statistics that shed some light on this.
This was referred to by Dr. Calvin. I want to back it up by the
statistics. This is from the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Who are they?
They signed letters with NARAL and Planned Parenthood and all these
other abortion groups, in support of this procedure, in support of
every liberalization you can possibly imagine. They are a pro-choice,
some would even suggest pro-abortion group. Here is what they say.
The risk of death associated with abortion increases with
the length of pregnancy, from 1 death in every 600,000
abortions at 8 or fewer weeks to 1 per 17,000 at 16-20 weeks,
and [after 20 weeks, when partial-birth abortions are
performed, they are considered late-term abortions after 20
weeks] 1 per 6,000 at 21 or more weeks.
It is 100 times more likely that a mother will die than if the
abortion were performed in the first 8 weeks. It is 100 times more
likely.
This is what these people are advocating, performing abortions. Let
me throw one statistic on top of that. I will show it. I will read it.
``It should be noted that at 21 weeks and after, abortion is twice as
risky for women as childbirth: The risk of maternal death is 1 in 6,000
for abortion and 1 in 13,000 for childbirth.''
So, aborting a child through partial-birth abortion, late in term, is
statistically more dangerous to the life of the woman than inducing
labor. In other words, not only is it preferential for our society not
to kill children who should be given a chance at birth, late, when
there may be a chance of viability or just when they should have at
least some dignity attached to their life, but it is more dangerous to
abort than it is to induce labor or to have a cesarean section. It is
more dangerous.
The folks who say they are protecting a woman's health and life are
arguing for procedures that do the exact opposite. Facts: I know we do
not like to talk about facts when it comes to abortion. We like to put
up pictures of nice families and warm little babies, that somehow or
another, this family is better off because of an abortion. The fact is
by having an abortion she was twice as likely to die and not be in that
picture. That is the fact. We do not want to talk about that. We want
to make sure the right of abortion is paramount among all rights.
Because that is what this amendment does--nothing. It lets there be
abortion on demand, anytime, anywhere, on anybody. That is what this
amendment does. It has no restrictions. It is an exception that is not
an exception.
It is an exception that says that, while we cannot have postviability
abortions except for the health of the mother-- let me tell you what
Dr. Warren Hern, who wrote the definitive textbook on abortion, called
``Abortion Practice,'' said. Here it is: ``Abortion Practice,'' Warren
M. Hern, from Colorado. My understanding is this is sort of the
definitive textbook on teaching abortions. He does second- and third-
trimester abortions and is very outspoken on this subject. He does not
use partial-birth abortion, I might add; does not see it as a
recognized procedure. But this is what an abortionist who does late-
term abortions--in fact, has people come from all over the world to
have abortions done by him--this is what he said about, not the Boxer-
Feinstein amendment but the Daschle amendment, which we are going to
debate next:
I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's
life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health.
In other words, abortion on demand, anytime during pregnancy. And he
believes this. Some would say you are relying on the doctor's bad
faith--no. He believes this. And he has a right to believe it. If you
look at the statistics, I mean, you know, unfortunately some women do
die as a result of pregnancy and, therefore, he could say legitimately
there is a risk. Any pregnancy is a risk. It may be a small risk, but
it is a risk. And all these bills require, that we are going to hear
today, is just a risk. Not a big risk, a risk.
So what we have are limitations without limits. What we have is a
farce, to try to fool all of you, to try to fool the press. It has done
a very good job fooling the press. We have wonderful headlines about
how we are trying to step forward and do something dramatic on limiting
late-term abortions. Phooey, we have a step forward into the realm of
political chicanery, of sham, of obfuscation, illusion, that does
nothing but protect the politician at the risk of the baby. That is
what is going on here. That is what is going on all day. You are going
to hear a lot of it. You are going to hear, ``Oh, we need to do this,
we need to protect this.'' Here are the facts as pointed out by their
side. I am using their facts. The Alan Guttmacher Institute--their
numbers.
Even when we debate with their information they cannot refute it. The
fact of the matter is, there is no reason to do a partial-birth
abortion and there is every reason in the world to stop it. It is a
dehumanizing procedure. You wonder why we have a society that just is
becoming adrift, that does not know right from wrong, that does not
have any sense of justice, that does not have--we do not have any
compassion for each other? I will give you a good example why that
happens. Because on the floor of the U.S. Senate we are debating a
procedure where we can kill a
[[Page S4524]]
little innocent baby that is completely delivered from the mother
except for the head. It is moving outside of the mother, a little baby
who has done nothing wrong to anybody, and we are saying, ``You don't
deserve to live.''
Give people like Donna Joy Watts a fighting chance. It will ennoble
us all. We can look to Donna Joy and her family and say there are
parents who showed the best, who showed the best in our hearts, who
showed the willingness to fight for life, for things that are at the
core of who we are as humanity. Let that spirit come back into American
culture. Stop this culture of death and self-centeredness and focus in
on life and dignity. What about poking scissors in the base of a little
baby's skull and suctioning its brains out is dignifying the human
being? You would not do that to a dog or an old cat that you wanted to
put to sleep. You would not do it to a criminal who has killed 30 or 40
people. And you do it to a little baby who has done nothing wrong and
just wants a chance, for however long it may be--and it may not be
long--but, for however long, the dignity of life.
The Senator from California talks about the long-lasting pain to the
family that we would be imposing on them. What is so painful about
looking at yourself in the mirror and saying: ``I have done everything
I can to help my little girl or my little boy have a chance at life. I
gave them every chance. I loved them as much as I possibly could in the
time that God gave us.'' What is so painful about that?
I will tell you pain. Facing, every day, that you killed your son or
daughter for no reason, that is a pain I would not want to live with.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield to me for a question?
Mr. SANTORUM. Not yet.
Mrs. BOXER. Let me know. I will be happy to wait until you are ready.
Thank you.
Mr. SANTORUM. There are great pains out there when you are dealing
with a child that is not going to live. It hurts. And it is troubling.
But you will find, not only from my experience but from the experience
of doctors who deal with this all the time, that treating your son or
daughter with dignity, loving them as much as you can for as long as
you can--does not make the pain go away. It never goes away. When you
lose a child it never, ever goes away. But it helps you live with it.
What we are doing today is, hopefully, banning a procedure and
explaining to all of those unfortunate people who may be dealing today,
right now, with this situation, that there is a better way for
everyone. Let us do the better way. Let us do the right thing. Let us
do the just thing for everyone.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Oklahoma is
recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me just make a couple of comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the time.
Does the Senator from Pennsylvania yield time to the Senator from
Oklahoma?
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding time.
I think he made one of the best presentations I have heard on the floor
of this body. I want to say that, when he deals with the facts, he is
dealing with the facts but, you know, we are also dealing today with
perceptions. I tried to make a list of those things I have heard over
and over. There is a lot of redundancy on this floor but there are some
things that have not been stated. I would like to share a couple of
those with you.
I am going to do something that is a little unusual, because I am
going to read some Scriptures to you. It is not totally unprecedented
in this body. In fact, the distinguished senior Senator from West
Virginia does it quite often. So I would like to read a couple of
Scriptures, just for those who care. Anyone who does not, don't listen.
First of all, I have used this a number of times, Jeremiah 1:35 says,
``Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I
sanctified you.''
Or the 139th Psalm, no matter which interpretation you use, it makes
it very clear when life begins.
Then, I was, not too long ago, at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
I had been to the museum in Jerusalem, and I found the same thing was
printed on the last brick as you are going through. This is Deuteronomy
30, verse 19. It said: ``I call heaven and earth as witnesses today
against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and
cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may
live.''
And, last, I am always concerned that something that is as dramatic
and is as significant as this issue is going to go unnoticed; that
maybe there are Senators out there who are not really into this issue
and they might want to vote the party line, or they might want to say,
well, maybe there aren't as many of these procedures out there, so they
just really are not knowledgeable of the subject. So, I will read
Proverbs 24, 11 and 12:
Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death. Don't
stand back and let them die. Don't try to disclaim
responsibility by saying you didn't know about it, for God
knows. Who knows all hearts knows yours, and He knew that you
know.
Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator from Massachusetts who
said it does not do any good if we pass this because the President is
going to veto it anyway. But I suggest to you that the President may
not veto it, and if he does veto it, maybe some people will come over
who were not here a year ago on this side of the aisle.
Ron Fitzsimmons who just last year insisted that the number of
partial birth abortions were a relative handful now admits ``I lied
through my teeth.''
He was lying. So if the President is predicating his decision to veto
this ban on the basis of what was told to him by Ron Fitzsimmons, there
is every reason he could turn around on the issue. I suggest also that
we are talking now not just about a procedure, but a culture.
I have a very good friend by the name of Charles W. Colson who gave
these remarks upon winning the prestigious Templeton Prize for
contribution to religion. Listen very carefully. He puts it all
together, not isolating one procedure or one issue:
Courts strike down even perfunctory prayers, and we are
surprised that schools, bristling with barbed wire, look more
like prisons than prisons do. Universities reject the very
idea of truth, and we are shocked when their best and
brightest loot and betray. Celebrities mock the traditional
family, even revile it as a form of slavery, and we are
appalled at the tragedy of broken homes and millions of unwed
mothers. The media celebrate sex without responsibility, and
we are horrified by plagues. Our lawmakers justify the taking
of innocent lives in sterile clinics, and we are terrorized
by the disregard for life in blood-soaked streets.
I think that kind of puts it into a context, which we are now
approaching, that this is not just a normal type of an abortion.
I have a great deal of respect for one of the most intellectual
Members of this body. It is Senator Patrick Moynihan from New York, who
is a self-proclaimed pro-choice Senator. He said:
And now we have testimony that it is not just too close to
infanticide, it is infanticide, and one would be too many.
This is where we get into the numbers game. I heard it said on this
floor many times that we are talking about maybe 1 percent or maybe
talking about those that are in the ninth month may be an infinitesimal
number. But, in fact, one is too many. It was said on the floor that we
may be only talking about 200 lives being taken during the normal
delivery process. That is when a baby is given a natural birth and,
yet, they take the life by using this barbaric procedure. We have all
kinds of documentation that it is bei